over all creation. He thought of Him also as the Head of His Church on earth; as the power and wisdom of God to men; as the Master with many servants; as the Captain with many soldiers; as the first-fruits from the dead; as the Second Adam; as One who, though He knew not sin, was in some mys terious sense made sin for us; as the Being with whom his own being was inextricably and indissolubly intertwined; "I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Obedience-unto death. It is one of the great ideals of human life. There are other ideals more attractive to what we call the natural man. There is the ideal of the subtle or the far-reaching intellect. There is the ideal of daring greatly, and ruling greatly, and impressing our influence on others. Christian friends, never make the mistake of supposing that obedience is a weak virtue. It is a stronger thing to cry out for our duties than for our rights. The three hundred who died at Thermopyla to bar the road of the invader, died, as their famous epitaph records, "in obedience to their country's laws." No, obedience is no weak virtue. It is, indeed, the grace of quiet homes, and the special charm of childhood; but it is also the strength of armies, the very bond of Churches, the mainstay and cohesion of states and of empires. "Obedient-unto death" might well be the touching and illustrious epitaph of many a faithful servant of his country whose merits are recorded either within or outside these walls. Bear with me if I allude to one or two instances. It is not wasted time to remember the simple goodness that God has given to any of our countrymen, whether renowned or from the ranks. India has been a grand school in obedience. That great Viceroy, Lord Dalhousie, when in the sixth year of his memorable government, was assured by his physicians that to stay any longer at his post was certain death. The answer of the wornout but still young ruler, the old man of fortyone, was worthy of a patriot and a Christian : "Believing it to be my duty to remain in India during this year, in fulfilment of my pledge, and trusting in the providence of God to avert from me those indirect risks against which you have so clearly and faithfully warned me, I have resolved to remain." He remained not one year, but two years, and then went home to die, resigning his great office on the last day in February. "It is Shall we turn from these ideals to our own hearts and our own homes? Shall we ask for some fresh passion for obedience to bring back into our own poor lives something that is "great in the sight of the Lord"? Let us ask Him to show us some portion of His will-something in the family, or the trade, or the profession- -some bad passion to fight down, some low trick to expel, some worldliness to outlive, some sorrow to be patient under, and all because it is His will, the will of the Father who made us not perishable machines, but, of a truth, living souls.REV. H. M. BUTLER, D.D., in “The Sunday Magazine." "BRANDED." I bear branded on my body the marks of Jesus.-GAL. vi. 17 (R. V.). THE branding of persons is no longer practised by us as a nation, though the statute book of this realm has contained it as an ordinance of criminal justice. But in the time and lands in which St. Paul lived it was customary. Domestic servants were at times branded with marks of ownership, though among the Greeks and Romans this was chiefly the case with fugitives who had been retaken. In some cases captives of war were so marked, and even soldiers at times branded themselves with some emblem of their general. But even more suggestively, persons attached to heathen deities or temples as priests or servitors were branded with a sign, by means of which they were rendered sacred and protected from violence, and were alsolutely and openly consecrated to their vocation. Now, it is such a zeal of devotion and apostleship that St. Paul claims to have received. If his journey to Damascus, with its heavenly vision, and the blindness sent and removed were the time of the conversion, since then he had stood forth a "branded" man. Perhaps the brightness of the vision which he saw and obeyed had injured his sight, and, it may be, that it was the weakness of eyes to which he seems, from time to time, to refer, that was the "mark of Jesus." Or it may be that in the evidences of the per secutions and perils he had encountered, in scars left by scourge, and rod, and stone, and shipwreck, he presented visible tokens of the absolute lordship of Jesus Christ. These things were the branding irons which for ever set the seal of His ownership. Thus the conversion of Saul had resulted in the absolute, indisputable, irrevocable lordship over him of Jesus Christ. If at times he insisted upon the apostolic prerogatives which Christ had conferred upon him, he as vividly remembered the fact that he was the bondservant, the slave, the branded servitor of Jesus. Nor is it improbable that the thought was present to the Apostle that men not only branded slaves, but also temple servitors. As the historian Herodotus relates, this branding of devotees made their bodies sacred and prohibited men from molesting them. It is precisely such protection that St. Paul is here claiming. "Let no man trouble me, for I bear branded on my body the marks of Jesus." The sanctity of the God to whom he renders service invests him with awful privileges to which he lays claim. He is not the servant of man, nor the mere teacher of a rival system of faith; he is the accepted and consecrated servant of God, and a priest in His temple. St. Paul was writing to a fickle people. A new fascination had speedily and fatally "bewitched" and ensnared the Galatian converts. Their profession had proved unstable, their consecration inconstant. But the great act of St. Paul's life was decisive for all time. That consecration could never be undone. And in this irrevocable consecration to an absolute lordship St. Paul found no cause of shame. His brand marks are his boast. "I bear them," he says, "openly and triumphantly." Like a veteran he stands in the front rank, and his scarred body speaks to the foes he faces of valour and of conflict victoriously waged. Such a conversion is an ideal after which we ought to strive.-REY. J. T. L. MAGGS, B.A., in "The Sunday at Home." THE LITTLENESS OF BETHLEHEM AND THE GREATNESS OF CHRIST. MICAH V. 2. BETHLEHEM cannot account for Jesus. Do mangers produce Messiahs? Things bring forth after their kind-this is the primal law of Genesis. It is true that genius often arises from lowliest station, and the great human powers seem to make way for themselves through narrowest surroundings. The seed of the oak is small, the source of the Amazon insignificant, and great men have usually had lowly cradles. But here is more than genuis or greatness. What if out of the acorn should come in a single season a forest of Lebanon; what if out of the Amazon springs should come a river of gold? I. Consider the meaning of this fact, THAT FROM THE LOWLIEST OF PEASANTS SPRANG THE SOUL THAT HAS SWAYED THE MIGHTIEST INTELLECTS OF THE WORLD. The moving powers of the eighteen centuries have been themselves moved by Jesus Christ. II. Consider another related fact, THAT OUT OF THE MOST MATERIALISTIC OF RELIGIONS CAME THE MOST SPIRITUAL OF TEACHERS. Judaism clung with almost ferocious tenacity to external signs and symbols. Many things in the Old Testament are concessions to this national and racial materialisın. An altar of stone or bronze, a literal sacrifice of slain beast or bird, a visible tent or temple with a mercyseat on which Jehovah was supposed to descend and sit-these were to the Jews. essential to any religious life. He rebuked that aspiration with unswerving courage, and died because He taught sordid materialized souls to worship in the temple of the heart only. III. Consider, also, THAT OUT OF THE NARROWEST OF RACES CAME THE MOST UNIVERSAL OF TEACHERS. The characteristic of Judaism, ancient and modern, is its refusal to recognize the universal element in religion or in humanity. IV. Consider, also, THAT OUT OF AN AGE WHICH EXALTED POWER AS SUPREME, CAME. ONE WHO EXALTED LOVE AS SUPREME IN GOD AND IN MAN. The symbol of Rome was. the rapacious, unwearied eagle. Military virtues were supreme. The Jews wanted a conquering general as Messiah. Out of such environment and atmosphere came One who exalted the feminine virtues, and proclaimed that the meek should inherit the earth. And as Bethlehem could not produce Christ, it could not confine Christ.-REV. W. H. P. FAUNCE, in "The Christian Age." THE SURVEY OF THOUGHT. PROF. Duff on ISAIAH.-Nearly half of Prof. Duff's Old Testament Theology; or, The History of Hebrew Religion from the Year 800 B.C. is devoted to an examination of the religious ideas of Isaiah and their place in Hebrew religious history, and an analysis of the writings in which they are stated. The standpoint of the whole discussion is distinctly that of the Higher Criticism. In common with other representatives of this school-if that term can be employed-Professor Duff accepts only about thirty of the sixty-six chapters as the work of Isaiah the son of Amoz. The motto proposed for the whole of these chapters is the often-recurring expression, "Jehovah the Holy One of Israel," or as Professor Duff prefers to render it, "Jehovah is the Devoted One of Israel," the word "kodesh," which he transliterates "Q-D-Sh," meaning, he thinks, when used of God, His devotion to His own peculiar people. Chronologically the prophecies of Isaiah are arranged in the two following groups: (1) The Oracles of Judgment; Amoslike in character; uttered probably from 740-735 B.C., and consisting of ii.-v. and ix. 8—x. 4. They are characterized by the motto "Shear-jashub," or "a remnant shall return." (2) The Oracles of Grace; Hosea-like in character; uttered in the period extending from 733-700 B.C., and comprising all the remaining chapters. They are characterized by the motto "Emmanuel," or rather "Immanu-El," that is, "With us is God." The kernel of Isaiah's character was his faith in revelation. His work marks a distinct advance on the teaching of his predecessors. Amos was the prophet of judgment, the prophet of despair so far as the sinner was concerned. Of his prophecy it may be said that "there was no room for mercy in it." Hosea went further, "seeing with deeper insight man's need of forgiveness, and also God's need to forgive," but he did not preach regeneration. He cherished a despairing hope. Isaiah combined earlier faiths, and centralized "the faith in a material revelation of the gracious love of Jehovah in the sanctuary of Zion." He rose higher than his predecessors in his conception of God, and understood better than they the nature of man. The latter, he saw clearly, was in need of nothing less than regeneration, and the former was both able and willing to meet the need. Not at once, however, was this perceived by the prophet. His religious thought developed, and the process can some measure be traced. Fierce denunciation was the work of his younger ministry. In his later life he attained to a maturer, calmer, truer condemnation of wrongs, striking at evil principles rather than evil deeds. There is much freshness and suggestiveness NO. III. VOL. I.—THE THINKER. N in Dr. Duff's treatment of his subject, but also much which is likely to provoke adverse criticism. Several passages are paraphrased in a style which cannot be commended. The opening portion of the great prophecy, for instance, about the shoot from the stem of Jesse in the eleventh chapter, is reproduced in the following extraordinary manner : "Now David's time hath come; his plants shall sprout, In his tree-tops shall rustle the winds of God, Wise winds that give kings strength, Bowing their reverent crowns before Jehovah's throne." Sometimes rhyme is employed for a line or two and then dropped without any visible reason. Nevertheless, these so-called paraphrases, eccentric though some of them are, deserve careful study. Students of history will be puzzled by the statement that Merodach-baladan visited Hezekiah; and few or none, we imagine, will endorse the suggestion that the Babylonian embassy was despatched after the loss of Babylon. THE MEANING OF THE WORD ETERNAL. A pamphlet on this important subject, by the Rev. Francis M. Cameron, M.A., Rector of Bonnington, Kent, has just been issued by Mr. Elliot Stock. Mr. Cameron makes an unfortunate slip at the very commencement of his pamphlet, where he writes, "First, I would premise that the New Testament contains no word to express absolute eternity or endlessness." Has he never met with the word didios (see Rom. i. 20; Jude 6)? Still, Mr. Cameron is not so far wrong as regards his special object, because this word is not applied to any human experience either of blessedness or of punishment. His analysis of the Greek word translated "eternal" in our New Testament (alúvios) is a little misleading. No doubt that word comes from a word (aiúv), which has two meanings in the New Testament. Sometimes it stands for the "world"-the world regarded in its successive stages of existence, especially under the category of time, while the word κóσμos describes the world rather under the category of space, in its beauty and order. At other times the word means an indefinite "age." But it cannot have both these meanings at the same time, nor can we choose arbitrarily between them to suit our purpose. Further, wherever we can fix the meaning of the adjective aiúvios by the context, this is invariably connected with the meaning" age," not with the meaning "world." Yet, in dealing with the adjective, Mr. Cameron glides from one meaning to the other, and sometimes regards it as signifying that which is real or substantial. There is no evidence that it ever has this meaning. Still, the best critics are agreed that it does not mean absolute everlastingness. It seems to point down the vista of ages without assigning any limit of time. THE EFFECT OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM UPON THE JEWISH RELIGION.An article on this subject appearing in The Jewish Quarterly Review, with the well-known name of "Montefiore" appended, naturally leads an uninitiated Gentile reader to look for a weighty pronouncement on the vexed questions of Old Testament controversy. But one effect of the article on such a reader must be to discover to him the immense divergence of Jewish writers in their interpretation of their own religion-a divergence, at least, as wide as that which separates an Archdeacon Denison from a Bishop Colenso in the Christian Church. Prof. Friedländer has recently represented orthodox Judaism in a book which simply ignores Old Testament criticism. But in this recent article in the Jewish Quarterly we are told that "to ignore criticism altogether is to run a tremendous risk." There are three positions taken up in regard to this matter. The first is that of ancient orthodoxy. Following the precepts of Maimonides, it is maintained that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is an article of faith which Jews are bound to believe as a religious duty. The second position is that of Moses Mendelssohn, revived by the school of Breslau; according to which the doctrine is unimportant so long as the rites and ceremonies of Judaism are duly observed. "There are people," we are told, "who are apparently willing to give up all the dogmas, if only they may retain their beloved rites and ceremonies. Retain them, be it observed, albeit emptied of all religious values, bereft of all religious life." This barren ceremonialism is justly repudiated by thoughtful and spiritually-minded Jews. A third position is now before us, viz., to accept the results of what is called the Higher Criticism, involving, as they do, the abandonment of the old creed of Maimonides. But, then, what is most essential to Judaism is still thought to remain. It is true that what is most distinctive of Judaism is lost, and we have little left but theism; still, what is distinctive of a system, what marks it off from other systems, is not necessarily what is most valuable in it or what is most vital to it. And if there is little left in the expurgated Judaism to distinguish it from pure theism, we are reminded that this is because Jewish theism has passed beyond the borders of the nation and permeated other societies—a proof of its victorious truth and power. But something more is left. The miraculous history is abandoned; the authority of the law is discarded; even the racial exclusiveness is let go. Still, to the great ideas of the Being of one God, Providence, and the immortality of the soul is added the unique national destiny of the Jews. Whether this can survive a ruthless pruning of the old faith remains to be seen. Meanwhile, it is refreshing to see the essential spiritual truths of Judaism singled out as of supreme importance, for it is just in these truths that it comes nearer to Christianity. TO OUR READERS.-We shall publish in our Magazine during the next month or two some very important papers on the history of Zoroastrianism, and on the books of Chronicles in their relation to recent critical theories. This latter subject has not received the attention it deserves. We shall also give a prize of books, to the value of one pound, for the best expository note on any text of Scripture, sent to the Editor by the end of March, |